California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California's Proposition 8, and now claims he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment.

Monday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California's voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has "never been and never will be" an "anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist."

"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren told the CNN audience on Monday. "The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, 'Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?' And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman."

However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.

The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:

"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.

"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.

"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.

"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.

"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.

"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."

During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.

Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."

I do not like Obama's association with Warrent at all, and I find Warren's opposition to proposition 8 as preposterous as opposing integrated schools.
That he lies about it shows that he knows it's wrong, but convenient.

I do not like Obama's association with Warrent at all, and I find Warren's opposition to proposition 8 as preposterous as opposing integrated schools.
That he lies about it shows that he knows it's wrong, but convenient.

Click to expand...

I believe in redemption, and if someone as influential as Warren is ready to be inclusive I'll certainly welcome his support. The fact that he's being dishonest is unfortunate, but the basis of religion is the ability to delude oneself.

I believe in redemption, and if someone as influential as Warren is ready to be inclusive I'll certainly welcome his support. The fact that he's being dishonest is unfortunate, but the basis of religion is the ability to delude oneself.

Click to expand...

Wow Patters, I mean, I agree with you about the Warren thing, but what's up with the smack at religion while you're at it?!?

How about we revise that to "the basis of religion is the belief in a higher power." Or something like that. Just because you and I don't have faith doesn't make it OK to deride those that do. Its faith, you can't prove it either way, so why is believing one way or the other deluding oneself?

Wow Patters, I mean, I agree with you about the Warren thing, but what's up with the smack at religion while you're at it?!?

How about we revise that to "the basis of religion is the belief in a higher power." Or something like that. Just because you and I don't have faith doesn't make it OK to deride those that do. Its faith, you can't prove it either way, so why is believing one way or the other deluding oneself?

Click to expand...

The left's version of 'tolerance' includes trashing the beliefs of those who you disagree with, you need to read Alinshy's rules for radicals.

How about we revise that to "the basis of religion is the belief in a higher power." Or something like that. Just because you and I don't have faith doesn't make it OK to deride those that do. Its faith, you can't prove it either way, so why is believing one way or the other deluding oneself?

Click to expand...

Because you can't prove it. You believe in something that you don't really know anything about. That's got to be considered delusion any way you slice it. We should at least be honest and call it what it is.

Invisible man in the sky. It's an amazing feat to convince large numbers of people in the existence of something that can't be shown to be true.

Because you can't prove it. You believe in something that you don't really know anything about. That's got to be considered delusion any way you slice it. We should at least be honest and call it what it is.

Invisible man in the sky. It's an amazing feat to convince large numbers of people in the existence of something that can't be shown to be true.

Because you can't prove it. You believe in something that you don't really know anything about. That's got to be considered delusion any way you slice it. We should at least be honest and call it what it is.

Invisible man in the sky. It's an amazing feat to convince large numbers of people in the existence of something that can't be shown to be true.

Click to expand...

There are lots of things we can't prove but we believe in anyway. We can't prove how life started on Earth, but we believe the best scientific theories. Many people believe string theory even though we lack proof that it is right (it just fits the math is all). People believe humans are warming the planet but we can't prove it (we'd all have to leave to do so). There are evidence for all these things, but not proof. The religious would tell you that they see evidence for the existence of a higher power in many ways, whether it be miracles, ancient texts, or their own personal experiences with god. Many of the smartest people in this world believe in god, including scholars, businessmen, and every President we've ever had (Obama included, and we can all agree he's a bright guy). To simply say they're all deluded because they believe in something that can't be proven is exactly the kind of closed-mindedness that we revile when we see it in other aspects of our lives (gays shouldn't marry, illegals are scum, government can limit free speech when it feels like it, etc.)

There are lots of things we can't prove but we believe in anyway. We can't prove how life started on Earth, but we believe the best scientific theories. Many people believe string theory even though we lack proof that it is right (it just fits the math is all). People believe humans are warming the planet but we can't prove it (we'd all have to leave to do so). There are evidence for all these things, but not proof. The religious would tell you that they see evidence for the existence of a higher power in many ways, whether it be miracles, ancient texts, or their own personal experiences with god. Many of the smartest people in this world believe in god, including scholars, businessmen, and every President we've ever had (Obama included, and we can all agree he's a bright guy). To simply say they're all deluded because they believe in something that can't be proven is exactly the kind of closed-mindedness that we revile when we see it in other aspects of our lives (gays shouldn't marry, illegals are scum, government can limit free speech when it feels like it, etc.)

Click to expand...

There are reasonable ways to interpret evidence and un-reasonable ways. The religious crowd uses the latter. I respect the people who are at least honest and say "I know I can't prove it, but it is a personal belief so I don't shove it down other people's throat." That's acceptable. Warren is using invisible man in the sky to justify denying people equal rights. That's positively horrifying and surreal.

There are reasonable ways to interpret evidence and un-reasonable ways. The religious crowd uses the latter. I respect the people who are at least honest and say "I know I can't prove it, but it is a personal belief so I don't shove it down other people's throat." That's acceptable. Warren is using invisible man in the sky to justify denying people equal rights. That's positively horrifying and surreal.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that wasn't the point either you or Patters was making. You were judging anyone religious irrespective of if they proselytize or not.

Sure, but that wasn't the point either you or Patters was making. You were judging anyone religious irrespective of if they proselytize or not.

Click to expand...

I wasn't judging anybody. I was saying that you can't prove anything and any assertion that the thing is true without any real evidence for it is problematic. Arguably delusional, just by definition. We can use a less pejorative word for it, I suppose, but the meaning is the same. Belief in something that can't be reasonably shown or reasonably argued to be true. You can't prove it, and an honest man admits it.

You don't see a problem with this? I can tell you the precise same thing about an after-life where the socialists are rewarded, and the capitalists are punished, without offering any real evidence, just really ominously. Remember it well. It will happen.

There are lots of things we can't prove but we believe in anyway. We can't prove how life started on Earth, but we believe the best scientific theories. Many people believe string theory even though we lack proof that it is right (it just fits the math is all). People believe humans are warming the planet but we can't prove it (we'd all have to leave to do so). There are evidence for all these things, but not proof. The religious would tell you that they see evidence for the existence of a higher power in many ways, whether it be miracles, ancient texts, or their own personal experiences with god. Many of the smartest people in this world believe in god, including scholars, businessmen, and every President we've ever had (Obama included, and we can all agree he's a bright guy). To simply say they're all deluded because they believe in something that can't be proven is exactly the kind of closed-mindedness that we revile when we see it in other aspects of our lives (gays shouldn't marry, illegals are scum, government can limit free speech when it feels like it, etc.)

Click to expand...

But all these things you list can be examined and scientific experiments conducted to see if any of this is possible. This cannot be done with the existence of God.

I wasn't judging anybody. I was saying that you can't prove anything and any assertion that the thing is true without any real evidence for it is problematic. Arguably delusional, just by definition. We can use a less pejorative word for it, I suppose, but the meaning is the same. Belief in something that can't be reasonably shown or reasonably argued to be true. You can't prove it, and an honest man admits it.

Click to expand...

A christian would point you to the bible for evidence. Let's look at the string theory comparison again, the religious have an ancient text that we know fits with historical data. The string theorists have math that would be consistent with the existence of strings, but no data to corroborate it. Who is more delusional?

Why can't religion be reasonably argued to be true? What if it was presented like this: "There is some higher power that guided the creation of the universe and the events that have unfolded since." Is that unreasonable? Seems OK to me.

At some point even science devolves into an exercise in faith. We'll never know what happened at the creation of the universe, or what existed before that. We'll never prove/disprove some of the necessary assumptions of string theory, like the existence of multiple overlapping universes. We'll never know what the climate on Earth would have been like today had humans never evolved. At some point everything becomes a philosophical argument rather than a scientific one.

I do agree though that it is just a wrong for a religious person to say they know god exists, or they have proof, because as we're saying, its an exercise in faith. They believe it to be true, and in their own heart know it, but that does not mean that it has been proven. So at least I agree with you there.